Don't fear Sequester 2, the sequel

Watch out - here comes the sequester's sequel. It's not going to be pretty, say federal lawmakers and budget analysts. The sequester has slipped many an American mind, mainly because it didn't really have much effect on ordinary people's lives. For people who have forgotten the whole thing in the turmoil of a partial government shutdown, the disastrous Obamacare rollout and the autumn exploits of the Boston Red Sox, it goes something like this:

"In 2011, Congress passed a law saying that if they couldn't agree on a plan to reduce our deficit by $4 trillion - including the $2.5 trillion in deficit reduction lawmakers in both parties have already accomplished over the last few years - about $1 trillion in automatic, arbitrary and across the board budget cuts would start to take effect in 2013. Unfortunately, Congress hasn't compromised." That's right from the White House website, which neglects to point out the sequester was the Obama administration's idea.

Andrew Taylor, of The Associated Press, by no means the voice of the tea party, made this point about the sequester, now in its ninth month:

"The first year of the automatic cuts didn't live up to the dire predictions from the Obama administration and others who warned of sweeping furloughs and big disruptions of government services." Why? Mr. Taylor waxed metaphorical: "(F)ederal agencies that have emptied the change jar and searched beneath the sofa cushions for money to ease the pain of sequestration have been so far able to make it through the automatic cuts relatively unscathed."

Perhaps the solution here is not to panic over the next round of sequester cuts, but to gaze with favor upon federal managers who were able to perform virtually the same amount of work despite enduring "about $1 trillion in automatic, arbitrary and across the board cuts.

The aforementioned Red Sox won the World Series despite injuries. Others picked up the slack. Likewise, federal managers were able to make do without some of their high-priced talent. Why not give them some credit for that, rather than moaning in fear about the coming cuts?

Second, the federal government is loaded with duplication. Rather than depriving people of programs they value, and which may even be good for the country, why not take a whack at the culture of redundancy?

As some leaders on both sides of the aisle have argued, the sequester could benefit from more flexibility. But the government's, and the public's, reaction to Sequester 1 has provided an important lesson: Uncle Sam is one boy who shouldn't cry wolf a second time.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

Email this article

Don't fear Sequester 2, the sequel

Watch out ? here comes the sequester's sequel. It's not going to be pretty, say federal lawmakers and budget analysts. The sequester has slipped many an American mind, mainly because it didn't really